FHRC Sets Ground Rules For Visits – who cares says SV!

Bloggers, Shaista comes from the same mould as Lewensky & Ayarse as they all seek the limelight and can no longer differenate between the truth and bull shit. Here we have Shaista now wanting to set ground rules for future foreign missions coming to Fiji and wanting to discuss issues on human rights in Fiji ‘without preconceived ideas.’ Who is she trying to bull shit! She’s the one guilty of preconceived ideas and forever justifying the illegal junta! The EU must also have farted eggs on her face to make their finding despite her trying to spin forth her lies. She tries to make her Commission sound so pious and important, but unfortunately through her illegal actions, she has become insignificant! Remember the word ‘insignificant?’ Used by the illegal junta to label all those opposing them, well the shoe is on the other foot now. Too bad Shaista. Your days are numbered!!! Remember to register ragone on www.solivakasama.org and thanks to the many who have already registered. We will get back to you shortly.

Publish date/time: 03/12/2008 [12:56]The Fiji Human Rights Commission has stressed that it will no longer entertain any further requests from foreign missions to visit the Commission for information unless strict conditions are met.

Chairperson Dr Shaista Shameem said they have decided that any foreign mission seeking an audience with them on various topics would have to provide comprehensive terms of reference and the purpose of their visit.

Dr Shameem said this is necessary as often the missions come in with pre-conceived ideas and never give them a chance to respond.

She said is it is important for the Commission to protect its international image.

by the way remember when the old hag was director of the Fiji Human Rights Commission, she was the one that used to make all the noises and press release for FHRC, now she is Chairperson she is still behaving as teh Director.

Back the she used to insist that the Commissioners set the policies, Chair is responsible for administration, and Director the day to day , management including press releases etc.

Well now taht she is the Chairperson, what the fuck is she still doing making policy announcement.

and where is the new director? do we have one? who are the commissioners?

these are questions we need to ask and demand answers for as taxpayers as we pay for the operation of bullshit organisations such as this.

Well we all know that the FHRC is as suspect as is the judiciary is divided.
It seems these so called principled people only have principles that are valid just so long as they can maintain their own privileged position.
Which is just a little weird considering a few are of left wing leanings supposedly opposed to class distinction, peace, love and goodwill to all mankind! I’m politically left of centre myself but those, such as the Shameens and the Bubbas, the Chodos, in fact the fucking lot of them seem to think they’ve paid some sort of dues which gives them an entitlement to lead and decide what is best.
These people will do anything to preserve their position – including embracing whatever opposing political ideology is on offer that serves to preserve their position – e.g. flogging off Fiji’s assets (such as water) to finance their regime (Sami et al).
And then we have all those Australian and New Zealand fuckwits shunting their pathetic wares (The Scutts, the Prydes, the Prasads) onto Fiji when their only real concern – i.e. their bottom line is opportunism and often setting up their retirement plans.
To all of them, when and if the shit does hit the fan, don’t expect sympathy. The dues you all think you’ve paid that give you some sort of entitlement are not, nor will they ever be as great as that underclass you all profess to have such concern about. Hopeflly they’ll be the first to lynch you!

ON ANOTHER SET OF GROUNG RULES…QORI!!!! GOOD ON THE QARANIVALU AND THE KUBUNA CONFEDERACY HEAD FOR SETTING THESE CONDITIONS…HUMBLE YOURSELF VOREQE AND SHOW YR TRUE COLOURS, ELECTIONS PLANS ASAP AND DECLARE BNT AN ILLEGAL ENTITY THEN WE WILL MEET AND TALK…YA!!!!!

WILL SEE WHAT THIS THIEF AND COWARD VOREQE COMES UP WITH. OHHHHHH!!! MANNNN CAN JUST FORESEE NA TATA NI GUSUNA KEI NA NININI NI YAVANA NI SA NA VACOBARA TOKA NA NONA MATANIGASAU..I.E IF HE EVEN HAS THE GUTS TO DO SO WITHOUT HIS GUNS BESIDE HIM…LUVENI TA-BOKA!!!!

Naitasiri to attend meet with conditions

Wednesday, December 03, 2008

Update: 4:56PM The vanua of Naitasiri has confirmed that they will attend the upcoming Bose Ni Turaga or the Traditional Leaders Forum but on conditions.

Speaking to The Fiji Times yesterday the Qaranivalu, Ratu Inoke Takiveikata said: “The first thing is for Republic of the Fiji Military Forces, particularly the Commander himself, to present a matanigasau and apologise to the Bose Levu Vakaturaga and to the people of Fiji for everyone to see

“Secondly, to show the people of this country the best and the quickest election process that the government will follow to get us back to parliamentary democracy.

“And thirdly, they must declare that the BNT is not in the Constitution and therefore it is illegal.”

According to Ratu Inoke, the province of Naitaisri will only attend the BNT if all these conditions are followed.

He has also confirmed that the head of the Kubuna Confederacy from Bau will be calling a meeting before the BNT on December 15 and 16 to assess their stand on the matter.

Au sa kanaka oti, sa oti na gaunani vosa. Qo sa gauna ni tucake vaka tagane ka tukuna na ka dodonu. Tell them in their face we don’t need them around. Go back to barracks and wait for us to when we form the next government.
Next we get rid of the useless military buggers for good!

Bula bloggers
In recent days Victor has published a series of pieces dissecting the behaviour of Shaista and her FHRC…below is one which came out on Tuesday:
NZ lawyer: RFMF can’t behave like supreme leader of Iran
NZ lawyer: RFMF cant behave like Supreme leader of Iran

Since 1987, according to New Zealand constitutional lawyer Professor Noel Cox, there has been a growing tendency in Fiji to view the RFMF as a permanent part of the political scene.

“This is to embark upon a slippery slope from which recovery is hard,” he said. It is doubly hard when the risks are apparently not recognised by the Fiji Human Rights Commission, a statutory body charged with protecting human rights in the country.

Cox said it was scarcely an exaggeration to say that the “Shameem Report” was worrying and irresponsible in its support for a politically-active military. Further, “there is also a suggestion by the Commission that censorship and the enforced politicalisation of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) would be desirable: The role of the NGOs in being able to disseminate accurate information to their donors must be reviewed.”

He said there is an endorsement by the FHRC of the paramountcy of human rights – but this is coupled with an unusual interpretation of the Constitution: “The Human Rights Commission continues to emphasise that human rights considerations are paramount and the military has been reminded a number of times that the Bill of Rights binds all levels of the State, including public officials. While ‘duty of necessity’ was invoked to dismiss the Government after allowing the Commander to ‘step into the shoes’ of the President, this duty must continue to be exercised pursuant to section 94 of the 1990 Constitution and section 112 of the 1997 Constitution. The principles of ‘duty of necessity’ established by Gates J in the Chandrika Prasad case is relevant in this respect and should be considered carefully. The duty is to uphold the Constitution and respect the rights and welfare of citizens is a fundamental duty which the military has undertaken to respect.”

According to Cox, this shows a serious misunderstanding of the role of the military. Further paragraphs in the Shameem Report reinforce this depressing impression, he said, quoting the report: “The second issue is the new role in which the military finds itself in Fiji. In fact it is not a new role as the idea is provided for in the 1990 Constitution. Section 94 of the 1990 Constitution certainly envisaged an interventionist role for the military but, judging by the recent reaction of one of the Constitutional Review Commission members to the crisis, his original intention, (whether or not shared by everyone else on the Commission) may not have been to see the military in this way, given its history in looking after the welfare of only certain interests to the exclusion of others.

Nevertheless, judging from the military’s actions from 2001, it has increasingly regarded itself as being able to protect national interests. This means that the military sees itself as being able to exercise force for the public good.

This is anathema to those who see a militarised society as objectionable and reflects some of the hesitation of the members of the public, in a hangover from the Cold War years, to accept an army to look after the good of all.”

The RFMF, the FHRC had argued, has the capacity to invoke certain human rights and welfare powers under section 94 of the 1990 Constitution and section 112 of the 1997 Constitution Amendment Act.

But Cox warned: “While some of those involved with drafting the 1990 Constitution may have felt that s94 gave the military some degree of independence, it is unwise to read ss94 and 112 in this manner, and also highly dangerous. The Commission is itself arguably encouraging the development (if, indeed, it needs any encouragement, in a country that has had four coups since 1987) of the “coup cycle”, by giving support to the military, whose leaders could indeed be charged with high treason.”

The FHRC even goes so far as to suggest that the military should have a stronger institutional involvement in politics: “But there should be no vagueness about the expression of duty and responsibility of a military in the public domain.

The Constitution should expressly state the agreed duty of the military, for example importing section 94 (3) of the 1990 Constitution into section 112 of the 1997 Constitution.

An example of how this could be exercised is in exactly the way the RFMF mobilised to provide water to people who had gone without for days, the resolution of the Emperor Gold Mine issues for the workers, stopping armed home invasions, and so on.

“On the other hand, the military could itself become more knowledgable [sic] about governance and politics, so that its force is seen to be exercised for the people rather than against them as Fiji has experienced in the past.”

Cox said this would give the military carte blanche to intervene from time to time, as it sees fit, and transform it from being the military servant of the state to a political organ effectively at least co-equal with Parliament, Cabinet and President; almost an authority of final appeal, like the Supreme Leader in Iran.

In the report, the FHRC elaborates on the “limits” it envisaged for such an arrangement: “Since it [the RFMF] has the constitutional power to ensure security and protect people, the military does not act unlawfully as long as it keeps to this objective.

In view of the rampant abuse of power, privilege, illegalities and wastage of wealth of the Qarase regime, as well as its proposed discriminatory legislation which, if enacted, would have constituted a ‘crime against humanity’ under the International Law Commission’s definition, and limited scope for an immediate judicial solution, there appear to be few options remaining to protect the people of Fiji from an illegal, unconstitutional, anti-human rights, and despotic regime.

“The Qarase Government relied on majoritarianism, and collaboration with some powerful members of the international community including close neighbours as well as some NGOs, to shield its extensive human rights violations in Fiji from scrutiny.”

Cox stated that it is probably reasonable to expect the military to intervene in the event of an “illegal, unconstitutional, anti-human rights, and despotic regime”, but it is questionable that the Qarase Government amounted to this. He said it was beyond the scope of his analysis to discuss whether the actions of the Qarase Government might have constituted “crime against humanity”, but such claim is prima facie improbable.

“To allow the military oversight of the actions of government in this manner is highly irregular, and a rejection of the principles of the rule of law, ironic enough given the great reliance placed on the ostensible legality of the military’s actions,” said Cox.

He said while the acquisition of power may be legitimated by the passage of time, by election, treaty or similar action, the subsequent conduct of a regime must also conform to appropriate standards to maintain that legitimacy. This constitutional principle, which is part of the concept of the rule of law, is based upon the practice of liberal democracies of the Western world. It means that what is done officially must be done in accordance with law.

In Europe, where an entrenched Constitution is the touchstone for legitimacy of government, there might be a general grant of power to the executive, and a bill of rights to protect the individual.

In the British tradition, and those countries which derive from it, public authorities must point to a specific authority to act as they do, and in some respects the government in such a system has little more inherent formal authority than do individuals. The State sees itself as the source of both law and power; legality prevails. Thus the emphasis lay on formal, objective, laws rather than subjective justice. Procedure rather than substance dominates.

In Fiji, according to Cox, since 1987 there have been some upheavals, but the courts recognised the re-establishment of constitutionality with the adoption of the 1997 Constitution. All subsequent actions by the organs of the state should be in accordance with the Grundnorm thus established.

The unilateral action of the military is not consistent with that standard. This gives the courts, not the civil or military servants of the state, the arbitral role.

This is done not merely because the courts operate in a neutral and dispassionate manner, but because the proper application of legal principles requires skill and training.

As Sir Edward Coke, Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, said in Prohibitions del Roy, almost 400 years ago: “… causes which concern the life, or inheritance, or goods or fortunes of his subjects, are not to be decided by natural reason, but by artificial reason and judgment of law, which law is an art which requires long study and experience, before that a man can attain to the cognisance of it.

The law is the golden met-wand and measure to try the causes of the subjects; and which protected His Majesty in safety and peace.”

Cox argued that neither ministers, nor the President – and certainly not the Commander of the RFMF – can unilaterally decide what action is legal and what is illegal. Much of the legitimacy of a political system derives from the impartiality and objectivity with which it is administered. Thus the very exercise of authority legitimates that authority.

Dicey defined rule of law to encompass the liberty of the individual, equality before the law, and freedom from arbitrary government.

The scope of the concept is however rather fluid. As Joseph observed, it includes such meanings as government according to law; the adjudicative ideal of common law jurisdictions; a minimum of State intervention and administrative power.

It also includes the need for fixed and predictable rules of law controlling government action; standards of common decency and fair play in public life; and the “fullest possible provision by the community of the conditions that enable the individual to develop into a morally and intellectually responsible person”.

It also includes the principles of freedom, equality, and democracy.

Cox said most writers now distance themselves from Dicey, and believe that his ideas of the rule of law should be subject to reappraisal. “But the subjugation of the military to the control of the civil government is a principle that has long been established in Commonwealth jurisprudence. To allow – nay to encourage – the armed forces of a country to assume a political oversight role, is highly dangerous and a retrograde step,” he said.

Cox said it was depressing that a statutory human rights body, the FHRC, could advocate such an approach, and a warning to the rest of the Commonwealth. “The precise nature of democracy, and “majoritarianism” (used in the report almost as it were something to be avoided) may be negotiable in Fiji, but without adherence to the principle of government according to law, then the country is in danger of declining into lawlessness,” he said.

The specious use of legal arguments to justify what is actually a military coup is not helpful, and no statutory body, least of all a human rights commission, ought to give support to such action. “If the Human Rights Commission will not take a stand in favour of the rule of law, then it is up to the legal profession collectively, and its members individually, to do so,” he said.

Cox said one can understand the realpolitik motive for wanting to ensure strong and stable government, but for the FHRC to recognise – and indeed encourage – a political oversight role for the military is imprudent, as experience in Latin America and elsewhere has shown. Condemnation of a Government for its actions is one thing, but to encourage the military to adopt the role of final arbiter is fraught with dangers.

The military owes its allegiance to the duly constituted civil authorities, and it is not for the armed forces to question the actions of the political leadership, or to purport to sit in judgement upon them.

“In an environment of the increasing politicisation of the military, the actions of Commodore Bainimarama are not particularly surprising. But for the Commission to back the military is a serious blow for the long-term development not merely of democracy, but of the rule of law, in Fiji,” he said.

It remains to the legal profession to educate the population – and perhaps most importantly, the military and political leadership – on questions of basic constitutional principles, said Cox.

l Views expressed in this article are of Victor Lal and not of the Fiji Sun. E-mail: vloxford@gmail.com

Shaister, once you have endorse an illegal activity that deprives the people (Humans) of their rights and freedom (as is happening now in Fiji and you are still pretending that it is not happening) you are not qualified to be appointed to any institution that has anything to do with HUMAN RIGHTS.
You see my dear, you might think you are smart intellectually, but from my assessment and my observation of your performance since the start of the 2000 coup, you don’t have the following essentials for that position :-

1) heart and passion to feel the suffering people (humans) are experiencing and fight for what is right.
2) the maturity to make wise decisions. You always make statements which is always clearly too colloquial and technical and done with the view to justify us with how knowledgeable you are with life. HOW OLD ARE YOU ANYWAY? The knowledge of how life operates in varying situations and circumstances will only be fully understood through “Learning through the experience process”.

I had always admired you as being a very smart lady but once you support an illegal takeover, I am one of the many who have lost our confidence in the independence, fairness, trustworthiness and reliability of the Human Right Commission.
I suggest that yourself and your board should resigned from the Commission and new members be properly selected so that the independence and credibility of this commission can be maintained.

SV please correct me if i’m wrong,I understand that Shaista’s Husband is a Air-Pacific Pilot? If he is than how come the democratic world such as New Zealand,Australia,USA are still allowing this terrorist relative to enter their countries? May be we all should write to the above nation and ask them to banned this person ASAP?